quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

I see, so not immunizing a person from the consequences of his actions does not limit that person's actions and therefore does not have the effect of limiting a previously broadly interpreted Constitutional right.

Exactly.

You posted Holmes' opinion, and even highlighted the relevant phrase.  Now consider the practical impact.  The key is "...and causing a panic."  No panic, no riot, no harm basically equates to no foul under Schenck.  The rule is "you can't start a riot by shouting fire," not "you can't shout 'fire'."

And that is precisely the balance that is always the case where rights are concerned.  Rights are inalienable and undeniable, but no right relieves a man of responsibility for his actions and the consequences thereof.

quote:

Yo

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: susie

Personally sat over here on the other side of the Atlantic it always amuses me the lengths some people go to in justifying the ownership of an item specifically designed to kill people.

Living on this side of the pond, it always amuses me the lengths some people go in justifying their total dependence on a nanny government, who watches their every move on cctv.

I'll keep my guns, you can keep Big Brother, OK?

quote:

Further, there's no such rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

We actually have no "God Given" Responsibilities except for those we accept through our own personal code.

We can be held responsible for our actions, via laws of society, but we don't have Responsibilities in the same sense as we have Rights.

quote:

We can be held responsible for our actions, via laws of society, but we don't have Responsibilities in the same sense as we have Rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

All in all then, this is not at all about guns per se. It is about whether we are citizens or subjects.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

Agreed, GoddessDustyGold!  My weapons are always in a ready state.   I do have handguns that are Double Action, at least for the first round, so that it is a whole lot less likely that I'd have an unintended discharge.   (There are no "accidental discharges" only "unintended discharges." )

Mine is set up to either have to be cocked or triggered twice before a bullet will come out. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: susie

Personally sat over here on the other side of the Atlantic it always amuses me the lengths some people go to in justifying the ownership of an item specifically designed to kill people.

Living on this side of the pond, it always amuses me the lengths some people go in justifying their total dependence on a nanny government, who watches their every move on cctv.

I'll keep my guns, you can keep Big Brother, OK?

Personally, sat on the same side of the Atlantic as Susie, it simply amazes me that so many people who have never even seen a real gun in real life, let alone touched one or used one, can be so expert in the field that they feel able to comment on the matter at all.

What it comes down to ultimately is whether people can be trusted to be responsible for themselves and those around them. The UK view for many years now has been that people must be treated equally, which in terms of their personal responsibility (and much else) means that the whole must be measured by reference to the lowest measure in that population - in this instance the most irresponsible, the most childish, the most foolish.

Clearly it would be stupid to allow irresponsible, childish and foolish people to have a firearm - therefore all must be prevented from such possession. In effect we are all judged incompetent, without any reference to the evidence of our personal conduct and demeanour. That in ten years of highly enjoyable ownership of a firearm I was never found to be irresponsible, childish or foolish with it is not to be considered; I am guilty, because I am equal to the rest, who are of course all stupid for fear of elevating one above another. The same sort of reasoning lies behind the growth of our police state - for all subjects are guilty, being equal to the criminal minority, unless it can be proven otherwise in each instance.

More worrying though is the attitude the British public exhibit. In this instance there is absolute abject terror regarding guns, absolute suspicion of psychopathology of anyone speaking in favour of gun ownership - based not on experience, but on ignorance of what a gun is and what a gun does. A gun doesnt do anything of its own accord - it requires someone to hold it and shoot it for it to achieve the ends which are so feared. More widely then, this paranoia must be seen to be in relation to other people, not the instruments they may or may not be permitted to own.

Indeed, we are all in absolute abject terror of one another, we each suspect psychopathology in others, we live in fear. And this should not be surprising, since after all we have been well educated to believe so by a system that says that every one of us is irresponsible, childish and foolish - who then can we trust? No one - except nanny who is there to look out for us.

This transfer of personal responsibility to the state is deeply dangerous. This trust in the powers that be, in full knowledge of our own equality of stupidity is leading us willingly to a situation of abysmal subjection every bit as bad as the government oppression that Americans in fear of their rights to firearms fear - except in this instance there will be no need for such oppression; the cattle after all follow willingly to Animal Farm.

All in all then, this is not at all about guns per se. It is about whether we are citizens or subjects. It is about whether we apathetically submit to the powers that be in denying us our rights in the name of our perceived security under nanny's watch, or we choose to be free and to face up to our personal responsibility for our actions.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

Agreed, GoddessDustyGold!  My weapons are always in a ready state.   I do have handguns that are Double Action, at least for the first round, so that it is a whole lot less likely that I'd have an unintended discharge.   (There are no "accidental discharges" only "unintended discharges." )

Mine is set up to either have to be cocked or triggered twice before a bullet will come out. 
A small safety measure that is remedied, if necessary, in the blink of an eye.

Edited to abbreviate the quote...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

It says "right to bear arms".Not right to bear firearms.


What the document doesn`t say, is as important as what it does say.

• A firearms license cannot be issued to any person who has been convicted of a felony unless you have received a pardon and it expressly authorizes you to receive, possess, or transport a firearm;
  
• A firearms license may not be issued to a person who has been convicted of a forcible misdemeanor, crime of domestic violence, carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a weapon at a public gathering or at school functions and convictions relating to controlled substances; and
  
• A firearms license may not be issued to a person who has been hospitalized as an inpatient in any mental hospital or alcohol or drug treatment center within the past five years. This does not necessarily disqualify the applicant; however, the Probate Court Judge shall use discretion in the issuance of the license.
  
• Firearms license cannot be issued to any person who has been convicted of any type of drug offense including nolo contendere and first offender pleas.
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreedyTop

Kennesaw... *snort*

I'd be willing to bet that the KKK dude (wildman, he calls himself) owns more guns than the entire rest of Kennesaw (proper AND incorporated, combined)

Yeah, really.  <doublesnort>  You know, I don't think I know anyone who owns guns. And I know one or two people here. I mean, odds are I DO, but it doesn't seem to be all that common. Of course, where I live (as you well know) isn't exactly double-wide alley.   Peace, sistah.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


Hippie, what if the good people of NYC were "allowed" to excercise their second amendment rights and armed robberies, home invaisions, murders, rapes etc "only" dropped by 5 or 10%?
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the crime rates in Washington, D.C. as more and more people start carrying guns won't it?
Do you think the rate of crime there will go up?
I lived in New Hampshire for ten years. ("Live Free or Die")
Everyone (almost) in N.H. owns and carries guns.
Lots of hunters and gun clubs up there.
In neighboring Massachusetts most don't due to their overly  restrictive laws.
The criminals aren't stupid. The rate of home robberies in Massachusetts is twenty times the rate of New Hampshire.
Even taking into account the population of both states (N.H. 1.3 m, Mass 5.8 m) that's still a huge disparity.
You evidently missed my points. Marietta is next door to Kennesaw. Was not a bedroom

Hippie, if you were a "house robber" where would you rather ply your "trade", Massachusetts or New Hampshire?

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Yeah you live in Marietta, Georgia where the violent crime index is 404, while the national avergae is 320. As of 2006 murders decreased, but rapes, robberies and burglaries were all up.

These are the limitations on Gun Ownership in your county:

• A firearms license cannot be issued to any person who has been convicted of a felony unless you have received a pardon and it expressly authorizes you to receive, possess, or transport a firearm;
  
• A firearms license may not be issued to a person who has been convicted of a forcible misdemeanor, crime of domestic violence, carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a weapon at a public gathering or at school functions and convictions relating to controlled substances; and
  
• A firearms license may not be issued to a person who has been hospitalized as an inpatient in any mental hospital or alcohol or drug treatment center within the past five years. This does not necessarily disqualify the applicant; however, the Probate Court Judge shall use discretion in the issuance of the license.
  
• Firearms license cannot be issued to any person who has been convicted of any type of drug offense including nolo contendere and first offender pleas.

I doubt the criminals with guns care about the well regulated limitations.

In 1992 an armed assailant attempted to enter the apartment of an elderly couple, that lived at the corner of Austell Rd. and S. Cobb Dr. . The maintenance man heard the commotion and called 911, then retrieved his firearm, went to the apartment and shot the armed assailant.

If just these two seniors were saved because of being able to carry a weapon, it was worth it. That is the point, that when the extreme occurs, hopefully someone that can help has the right to carry a weapon and is doing so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreedyTop

Kennesaw... *snort*

I'd be willing to bet that the KKK dude (wildman, he calls himself) owns more guns than the entire rest of Kennesaw (proper AND incorporated, combined)

Yeah, really.  <doublesnort>  You know, I don't think I know anyone who owns guns. And I know one or two people here. I mean, odds are I DO, but it doesn't seem to be all that common. Of course, where I live (as you well know) isn't exactly double-wide alley.   Peace, sistah.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

I remember a work colleague a few years ago, he developed an interest in hunting and applied for a shotgun licence. He was denied, denied because the police sought medical advice on him and because he had had a motorcycle crash years before and suffered depression because of the injuries, which is quite normal, that went against him. So despite how responsible a person maybe, any hint of depression is called mental illness and that denies a person the right to own a firearm. The work colleague did eventually own a shotgun, but he wasn't licensed, he was not going to let  the law stop him in his interest, a risk for him, but one he thought was worth it.

To note, the colleague's employer thought him competant enough to be trusted with the use and servicing of cartridge tools, those themselves requiring a certain part of a shotgun licence to use. In fact one of our cartridge tools was stolen, painted black and used to hold up a post office in the midlands.

He used to be an air gunner, the air gun he had was more than capable of killing, it being the hunting type, and was a bit too powerful, he being a mechanic, he squeezed as much out of the thing as he could.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

1. I do not live in Marietta. My mailing address is Marietta.
2. Just what does your micro-rant have to do with my response to GT?